Dislodging a Dictator

Yasser didn`t write this earlier at risk of sounding patronising -
What you really need is more people like you - staunch Nationalists, educated and committed towards the welfare of your country. Not politicians who think that it is their birthright to rule, so let Benazir be condemned to the dustbins of history.

Re Stuka # 51 ``Really?? So what vernacular term do you use for Bhangis? In Punjabi at least, the words chooda, chamar and bhangi are perfectly acceptable. In English we would use the term Scheduled Castes. ``
Yaar kabhi yeh words public may mat bol dena riots ho jayengay. I am pretty sure these words are never used in public by Punjabis. I have heard many of my friends use these as a matter of abuse (sale Dilliwale ko explain karnay ki zaroorat nahi hai) but most of them belong to the same social class/strata. These words are offensive to the communities they are aimed at and I for one am glad that they are being phased out. Its something similar to the word ``jamadar`` now known as ``safai karamchari``.

#72 by rozaiba
You seem to be so stupid! please do not compare with what military does on battlefield and what it does itself in country. Whatever happened in 1971 Bangladesh , was when Pakistan was at war. By the way don`t you think Indian army doing same in Kashmir, even US army doin in Iraq, or nazis doin in Germany, or Russians doin in cold war. Well at all these points these armies have been at war. When in their own country these armies have truly proved themselves.
When there is war countries never stop supporting their armies just because they commiting atrocities.
Armies remain strong insitutions, Pakistan is lucky to have one, atleast we have something to relay on, unlike Africa with war and hunger goin on everywhere.
So you poor statistic is unable to prove what you meant, come up with good reasoning atleast. Well you article proves that maybe so called people like you are just as entirely stupid as common man.

Stuka - Yes of course everyone uses it bhai - but imagine using it in a derogatory way to describe an Indian Politician in a discussion about Indian Democracy ?! What would supporters of Mayawati, Mulayam & Lalloo say ? You`re old enough to remember Mandal right ? BTW I speak from experience - once called a grubby kid a ``Khateek`` in front of a guy who`s Mom is a Congress MP and got a lecture on how ``Dalits`` should not be spoken of disrespectfully.

Vaisay what IS the haal chaal of Bhangis in Pakistan ? Do they have reservations and NGO`s like Sulabh International making Shauchalayas (sp ?) and International Toilet Museums to improve their lot or something ? Are Bhangis of Lahore doing better than Bhangis of Amritsar ? In Freedom at Midnight (I think) they said Bhangis were allowed to stay in Pakistan otherwise who would take out the ``nightsoil`` ... there is something really weird about having an “achoot” hindu caste survive in a non-hindu society ... did they stay hindu? why?

Also (before Manto says) this has nothing whatsoever to do with Benazir ... so please only bother to answer if you`re totally timepass as they say in Hinglish

Khamakwa – My Nani used to say “Tum kaun? … ham khamakwa, kaiye aaye? … binbulai” as a sarcastic comment – ever heard that ?

I think people are unnecessarily and overly worried by the rise of the MMA. Specifically those, who just three years ago, were crying left and right about the benefits of democracy, and how its results are always the best. Now they seem to be on the forefront of getting rid of MMA, through every means possible. Quite the double standard.

NWFP and Baluchistan are two of the most backward areas in the world - much less in Pakistan. NWFP has been historically ruled by ANP and PML(Q), with a bit of PPP(Sherpao). All three parties were supported by Musharraf`s govt. Baluchistan has been ruled by tribal leaders through their political parties.

Obviously, these guys did an extremely pathetic job of ruling these areas. I have seen NWFP`s rural areas, and they are in bad shape. Baluchistan must be in even worse shape. All these rulers coincidentally happened be quite secular.

However, it would be a bit disengenous for people sitting in living rooms in Lahore and New York to want the common guy in Charsadda or Gwadar to continue to vote for these losers, just because they are secular. The voters were bound to vote for someone else, since their living standards were not rising. So they voted for the MMA. Not because of reliigion, but with the hope that it will raise their living standards.

After all, the literacy rate for women in Baluchistan is 3.7%. Should these women keep voting for the same people, just because they are secular?

I think this is how democracy is supposed to work. The bigger evil (feudal/tribal etc.) gets replaced by the smaller evil (mullah). The smaller evil eventually gets replaced by a decent group.

The solution to this is not to get overly scared by the smaller evil, and ask for the return of the bigger evil (just because it is secular). The solution is to support a third alternative. Those wanting secularism in NWFP and Baluchistan will be more successful, if they support some alternative secular party - someone other than ANP, PPP, PML, etc. These have failed and have been discarded by their voters in these areas. By continuing to support corrupt leaders of these parties, these folks are only making the MMA stronger.

There are other good secular leaders besides Benazir. The more she is supported by her misguided supporters (apparently many on this site), the weaker they will make secularism in Pakistan. Those who think she can win anytime, need to take a look at what has just happened in Baluchistan and NWFP. The same could end up happening in Punajb and Sind, if the only face of secularism in Pakistan is the corrupt feudal.

Friends recently busy with some domestic and professional work. So little comments.
Mr. YLH is cofused person.
He had been great supporter of General Sahib. I do not think he is dishonest just confused.
It amazing for highschool grad like me. It will be interesting if he writes why he changes opinion so shortly and with great convictions. I will enjoy. I am aware many are very principled and follow principles but do not mind changing principles.
Also my observations not all peiople mature with wisdom. After serving many famous people over time I have little conclusion most may not agree.

More you read and study you become more foolish. Basics are lost in details. Foreign education can add vocabulary but depth, depth of convictions and independent thinking is important. I suggest most to refrain from quoting from leadrs, some books old speeaches. Most references are trivail, no body reads . It just like saying some body look at my white beard so I must be with visdom. Again Information is not know knowledge.

This is great joke. I had great laugh. I am tried of hearing what Mr. J said I want to know what you think. I think Its not personal aginst YLH but in general I have written. I had not be able to fathom core belief of many may be they do not have any. Just ritred of this subject. Let us go to Tap Pipeline, Port in B.Stan, K. Stock exchange etc. Just suggestion to get some economist to write on these subjects. I have learnt about politics let us move to money, stocks ets.

here is a brief profile of a man who laid the groundwork for one of the bigest miracles of our times nay probably of human existence. (romair: you are going to enjoy reading this). and eerlily enough -- from comparison to ataturk to holding of referendum and rigged elections to sending of troops in an unpopular war, the story has much in common to our discussion here. and if any of you out there know musharrif, please do us all a favour and email him this article. you will be doing us and future generations of pakis a huge favour

syedasif:

well said. the fact that posts such as your dont elicit any responses leads me to believe that quality of people here is no different.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/park1.html

At the end of a long silence, I asked Park if he ever compared himself to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. The President shifted his heavy gaze to the questioner, contemplating him as a rattlesnake might look upon a mouse. After a pause, he replied, ``I do not know much about Kemal Pasha, but I would like to do for Korea what he did for Turkey--make it economically strong and militarily secure.``


_ _ _ As it turned out, he was just the man Korea needed. In 1961, per-capita income in South Korea was less than $100 a year. North Korea, with mineral resources and an industrial base, was regarded as the stronger power on the peninsula. Park moved quickly to correct this imbalance. Within weeks of his coup, he had established a body to provide central government direction to economic development. A five-year plan was developed, and Park put knowledgeable economists in charge of implementing it.

Recognizing the need for large infusions of foreign capital, Park took the vital but highly unpopular step of normalizing diplomatic relations with Japan. This sparked campus demonstrations in Seoul in 1964, and Park responded by imposing martial law until quiet was restored. Normalization with Japan was achieved in 1965, bringing with it $800 million in economic aid.

Park agreed that year to send two Korean divisions to fight alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam, for which Korea was richly rewarded by Washington. In the mid-`60s, revenues from the Vietnam War were the largest single source of foreign-exchange earnings for Korea. These funds helped launch the country`s transformation over the next two decades from economic basket case to world leader in iron and steel production, shipbuilding, chemicals, consumer electronics and other commodities. Korea`s per-capita income increased tenfold during Park`s tenure.

On the political front, Park gradually yielded to pressure from the Kennedy Administration and re-established civilian rule. In 1962, a national referendum restored a presidential system, under which Park was elected President in the following year.

Easily re-elected in 1967, he had a hard time beating Kim Dae Jung in 1971. The validity of Park`s narrow election victory is still questioned. In 1972, fearing Kim`s political potency, Park changed the election system, allowing indirect voting that could be controlled by the incumbent. In 1972 and again in 1978 he was easily elected for six-year terms.

The early 1970s were a pivotal period in U.S. relations with Korea. From Park`s perspective, America`s failure in Vietnam made it a less reliable ally and increased the need for South Korean strength and self-reliance. The 1972 yushin (revitalizing reforms) system was a swing back to authoritarianism. Many political leaders were arbitrarily arrested, and the security apparatus entered its most draconian period, putting down dissent and becoming infamous for its use of torture. (Kim Dae Jung escaped arrest only because he was out of the country.) Park was fortifying his political base in preparation for an attempt to establish a dialogue with North Korea.


_ _ _South Korea is full of monuments to Park Chung Hee, from the giant steel mills, shipyards and factories he built, to the superhighway system he launched. All are reminders of the man who, more than any other, made South Korea what it is today in economic terms. Had Park followed the advice he gave to himself in 1974, at the golf dinner, he might still be alive to enjoy the national affection he so richly deserves.

Donald Gregg served as U.S. Ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993 and now heads the Korea Society in New York

one thing i cannot understand on here is those people who are all for free elections and democracy but who would be the first to oppose the outcome of such elections if the Islamic parties won. how do they explain that?

It is attitudes like this which make the common pakistani distrust them.

re: #61 by rozaiba

Have to agree with you. Recently I had the distinct pleasure of discussing democracy with a relative who is a serving Maj.General. Here are some of the ``pearls of wisdom`` this gentleman heaped on me:

• Democracy cannot function without an educated populace. Unless literacy rates in Pakistan reach a health 60-70%, the country is better off under military rule.


• Pakistani politicians are unpatriotic, selfish and only interested in personal wealth. In contrast, it is the Faujis who face danger and make an honest living on meager salaries.


• Pakistan`s feudal structure prevents the populace from expressing its own will through the ballot; the rural voter who comprises 70% of total population, cannot oppose the feudal lord; thus elections are sham


• Civilians lack discipline and cannot run an institution as well as the Army can.


• Intellectuals (read: PPP) are more dangerous to the country than simple religious people (read: Mullahs) because they try to manipulate an unsuspecting populace for their own ulterior motives. In contrast, religious leaders are over-zealous, but not insincere.

IMHO, the civilian leadership cannot reason with the Army. The Faujis are holding the levers of power, while the civilian leadership is in complete disarray (and completely discredited in the eyes of the public).

Before civilians think of dislodging this dictator, they must first rid themselves of corrupt and bogus leaders. Only a charismatic, honest civilian leader can pose a threat to Musharraf. All other aspirants will either be disqualified on grounds of corruption, ... or their parties will be split through horse-trading.

All feudal attrocities, all loot of politicians pales compared to the `lut maar` of the faujiz for the duration of the country`s history!!

One statistic should in itself explain everything:

3 million East Pakistanis massacared as a result of fauji egos and guns. Another would be the 500 BILLION dollars spent on worthless military over the country`s history (take into account the sum of future/present value and opportunity costs etc.- you do the calculations- if you come up with something different, inform me)

--
This is the mentality of Fauji-lovers:

The common man is entirely stupid. He has no experience with democracy. So he will be irresponsible and sees his vote not as a way to voice his opinion but as a `commodity` to be sold to the highest bidder. So since the common man is too stupid and selfish to realize the value of a vote, we should take it away from him until he is competent enough (like the educated reading writing types) to exercise it in an extremely civilized manner. For now, the common man is uncivilized.

Very uncivilized. Why else does he continue to vote for a corrupt and arrogant politician like Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif? These two are not leaders. They are renegade elements and harmful to the country`s progress and growth. The common person is too stupid to realize that. We should help the common person by trying to help `better` people come forward and replace them. And we shall persist with the exercise of forcing `clean and honest` people like Imran Khan, down the throat of the stupid masses who don`t know right from wrong. It doesn`t matter if the stupid masses continue to deny the `clean and honest` politicians a chance to rule. As long as we set the rules and keep changing the goal post, the stupidity can be maintained at a distance and Pakistan can prosper. Hell, it`s all the better as with all these random rule changes, no institution can ever grow into anything meaningful. This way, the common nuts can be made to run around aimlessly, while we can control the future of the country (so what if the same mentality resulted in the massacre of 3 million East Pakistanis and dismembered the major part of the country?). It is imperative to control the stupid people at all costs. We really wish they weren`t so stupid, but they are. Let`s help them with the great education we`ve been blessed with by denying them the right to freely exercise their vote anyway they like. We know better. They don`t. Did we mention they were stupid?
--

etc., etc. etc. I`m sure you all get the piont :) :)
utterly disgusting.

Well I totally disagree wih what you have to say! I dunt find any relation while moving from one paragraph to another, while reading your article. Benazir`s corruption is equally as bad as mulla`s talibanization of Pakistan. Today we say military didnot allow democracy to run in Pakistan. Comon dunt forget democracy was there from 1988 till 1999 and none of the democratic elected government tried to bring reforms. Our education remained worst, our media was reflecting democarcy, by showing government tailored agenda.And above whole world knows how our democratic governments did economically by freezing foreign accounts. Military is strong, have you looked at their schooling system, or the enviroment. I believe amongst all military is the only one institution which can save Pakistan. Please study teh communism in China and its reform movement. Democrarcy has failed in Pakistan. Apart from 10-20% educated politicans 80% of our democratically elected representatives have no idea what kind of law making/legistation they need to make country run.These people just come on teh basis of money,feudilism. at least it has been proven in USA taht more money you spend on you campaign more chances are that you will succeed . Moreover, don`t forget votes in Pakistan are not given on the credibility/qualification of the candidate, BUT on the bases that how much you know that person, and what sect that person belongs to.....
Lets work towards giving governence/decision making in hands of educated middle class.
Middle class who cares for living a better life, better jobs, better health and better education. Lets stand up against all bad forces who have done nuthing for our country these forces include Maulvis, PPP no matter how many P`s u put and PML Q/N/C....Z
Long Live Pakistan!

Yasser,
I`m going to try and be as diplomatic as possible here, because then the crap hits the punkha and you tell me I`ve hurt your feelings and the last thing my weak failing heart can bear is to have hurt anyone`s feelings. : )

there have got to be more intelligent, dedicated people in pakistan who could be at the helm of the government than pinky dearest. the fact that such people have not come out, or been found and `cultivated` is at the heart of the problem in pakistan. if, and its a big if, feroz is correct and pakistan is only fit to be under administrative rule a la the burtanvis, then does it necessarily follow that the army and its COAS must do the ruling? but please, let it not be pinky dearest, or nawabzada nawaz or any of the khatmal we have right now.

and upon hearing your disavowal and disassociation from pinky once her conviction came through, it reminded me for some reason of something pinky dearest told an interviewer . when asked where she was in the political spectrum, she responded that she was center left (talk about like being more out in left field), but of course if the americans came to her aid, that position would change to suit the americans! so much for the courage of people`s convictions! not that i`m questioning yours yasser, but next time you put so much faith in someone to be the saviour. . .try someone who hasn`t robbed the people for her and her husband`s own greed. . .or stick with mills & boon loving pinky khanum despite all odds firmly believing she is the messiah. . .and yes, we all might as well give up on pakistan if we do that, and call it quits.
whatever you do. .follow the courage of your convictions, whatever that means.
ana

Manto

``Thankyou for your support and kind words. As I got to know more Indians, I realized that the few who have the knee jerk reaction and ego problem are very very few in India... that is why I decided to give up whatever biases I had towards India and Indians irrevocably.``

The following post by RSaxena should help even further.. Those who have been around on Chowk will realize that this is a big compliment indeed...

``..ylh makes some sense here....romair keeps peddling same old military nonsense....yet pakis here are jumping on ylh...i don`t get it... ``

Manto, at this rate if you join politics more Indians than Pakistanis will vote for you. :)

Arjun M:

Dude, you are being unfair and you know it.


++
The plan for the creation of sovereign state in Bengal was hinted to in the Lahore Resolution which forms the basis of Pakistan. It was expected for the longest time that Bangladesh and Pakistan would be two republics as early as 1947 with a confederal alliance.
++

YLH`s reference is to the Bengal Resolution which DID initially envision TWO Pakistans. This can be verified even in Indian history books.

``So the paki spin on 71 is that Bangladesh was being planned all along? If so, why didn`t you just let the Bangladeshis have their own country when they demanded it? Why did you have to lose a war and end up with 90,000 PoWs? ``


YLH was making the point that the initial vision of Pakistan did have space for two autonomous / independent wings. You have to consider the fact that these plans were on paper..a theory that was just being iniated. If your idea is serious debate, then my post is relevant.

Arjun

The Independent Bengal was definitely suggested and is well documented in the history books. The Lahore resolution had called for autonomous `states` not state. This has been discussed many times before on Chowk ... I remember a great article by the late Professor Bilal Ahmad on this topic... May God rest his soul.

As for the `multi-nation theory`... it too had its proponents who disagreed with both the one nation theory (India) and two nation theory (Muslim and Hindu)... they felt that India should be carved up according to ethnic and linguistic distinctions. Then there could be a confederation of a multi-national south Asia. Sir Chotu Ram, Sir Sikandar Hayat, and Khizer Hayat were the proponents of this view. Suhrawardy was also of similar views... and some of the people who held this view got recruited into the Muslim League because they believed that the Lahore Resolution with its hint towards autonomous states is giving exactly that.


Pankaj

Thankyou for your support and kind words. As I got to know more Indians, I realized that the few who have the knee jerk reaction and ego problem are very very few in India... that is why I decided to give up whatever biases I had towards India and Indians irrevocably.

-Manto

Romair

``He, alone, has had more wives, than the leadership of the MMA, combined``

Could it be because two of the major leaders of the MMA never married... I don`t wish to elaborate on the reasons... actually that might also go in your favor...

-Manto

Ms Benazir Bhutto`s only crendentials for the job seem to be her lineage - which in a tribal culture like Pakistan amounts to everything. Her incompetence however is legendary - and her association with crooks, brigands, murderers, vagrants and thieves does not add to her persona or credibility -except to the mentally retarded or the physically infatuated. Ms Bhutto does have a charismatic personality and good TV persona - but so does Traci Lords ... and nobody is clamoring her for her to run for elective office...... - With almost 2 terms in office there is no tangible legacy of any accomplishment but a wasteland of corruption and debauchery....

I tend to Agree with some of the respondents - that comparing Ms Jinnah to Miss Bhutto is an affront to sane and rational people. Ms Jinnah was an immensely charisamtic personality ( independent of being Mr Jinnah`s Sister) and a person of immense stature in her own right.

However one would disagree that one could lay the entire blame of Pakistan`s disastrous tryst with self government on Mr Jinnah`s precedence as Governor General of Pakistan. Mr Jinnah had strong democratic credentials as had an even stronger track record throughout his political career from the privy council to politics of the Muslim league as a fairly resolute democrat.

Similar parrlelles are evidenced even in US history - with Lincoln during the Civil War or Roooselvelt during WW2 - where their presidency assumed almost regal powers.

The problem has less to do the with insitutions - since the institutions were fairly strong until the early 50`s - a benevolenbt gift to the barbarians.

The blame lies squarely on Pakistani culture and its tribal origins. Democratic institutions have not flourished because there is no progressive culture. Forget Pakistan _ lets look at Pakistanis in the US .... -``big on words - very little action`` - a flair for the theatrics - any institution founded by Pakis is a diaster area whether it is APSENA or any other religious social or professional organization... Agreeably there is no concept of amicable conflict resolution, no collective responsibilty - no concept of transitional leadership - One can argue that there is a strong tradition of a democratic culture in the US, - one can argue the high level of professional accomplisments of individuals at a personal level - and even an above average education - moreover an environment conducive to both personal and collective growth. Clues lie in the replies of many of my fellow respondents - there are strong overt references of almost mythical proportions of personal accomplishments, - a strong tribal, regional, cultural underpinnings of racial or cultural superiority where none exists, a penchanct for for finger pointing based on emotional rhetoric and quite frankly a complete lack of focus or vision beyond personal promotion.

The same principles when applied to a national level yield similar results - a personality oriented tug of war with no emphasis on results - and a cult of personality without any accountability and consequently the diefication of leaders like Ms Bhutto









.